More info: The board will be discussing whether to designate the property at 445 College Ave. as a landmark over the property owner's objection.

The Boulder Landmarks Board on Wednesday evening will consider something it has only done five times since 1980: designating a property as a landmark over an owner's objection.

The property in question — a chalet-style house at 445 College Ave. designed by Hobart Wagener — is one of three private residences in recent months to be issued a stay of demolition and considered for landmark status despite protests from the owners.

Earlier this year, the Landmarks Board imposed stays of demolition on the home at 747 12th St., where plans involved a redevelopment of the property, and 405 Valley View Drive, where a smaller-scale remodel was proposed.

Advertisement

In October, the board unanimously initiated the process to landmark 747 12th St. and also create a historic district along the 700 block of 12th Street. The 12th Street measures are expected to go before the board again in January. Last month, the board issued the demolition permit for 405 Valley View Drive, allowing for a remodel of a portion of the house.

Residents who have been affected by potential involuntary landmark designations have questioned the direction of Boulder's historic preservation process and the precedent that could be set.

"We feel like this process has really gotten out of line," said Erik Johnson, who co-owns the 747 12th St. bungalow with his siblings. Johnson said he and his siblings are middle-income earners who hope to sell the property, which was passed down from their parents, to a local developer.

However, members of the Landmarks Board say they are adhering to the code and taking pause to ensure that they're being mindful of preserving aspects of Boulder's historic character.

"There's a big difference between a stay of demolition and landmarking over someone's objections," said Kate Remley, a member of the Landmarks Board. "The ordinance has been put in place to give due consideration to the public good in terms of the historic character in Boulder."

Considering these and other recent high-profile historic designation cases in addition to some growing rumblings about how development is shaping Boulder, board members such as Remley and Fran Sheets say there are opportunities for broader conversations about how historic preservation fits with an evolving municipality.

"We need to be able to come together, I think, a little bit more instead of shouting frustrations to really discuss what the issues are and what we really want to have happen when we're here and when we're gone," said Sheets, a 40-year resident of Boulder.

Considering exceptions

When Sam Slattery bought the century-old home at 405 Valley View Drive in 2006 for $560,000, one of the compelling elements in addition to the Colonial Revival charm was that it was not located in a historic district.

Slattery said he heard horror stories about the difficulties in maintaining and upgrading homes while adhering to historic preservation standards.

"I'm not going to voluntarily give away rights," he said.

So when a planned 100-square-foot remodel — to widen the kitchen to fit standard appliances, ease the pitch of the roof in the bedroom and to repair rotted-out beams below — triggered a Landmarks Board visit and an eventual potential landmark designation, Slattery said he was not pleased.

"They should be applauding renovations like this," he said. "People are supposed to pursue a landmarks status, not be subjected to it."

Last month, the Landmarks Board unanimously gave the go-ahead for the partial demolition. The decision came after some wavering by board members who initially believed they had to consider the project as a 100 percent demolition.

Slattery said he was frustrated by the process, which cost him thousands of dollars and plenty of lost time.

"Everything went in the right direction for us," Slattery said. "But boy, we just really hope at some point that some of these things get fixed for people. It's an unfortunate process."

Remley, a Landmarks Board member for a year and a half, said the board is considering ways to improve processes including evaluating the demolition ordinance. Members also are taking steps to help provide education about the process and dispel some myths, she said.

"That demolition ordinance is rightfully cautious in defining demolition, but then it can lead to some quirky, special cases," she said, referencing the 405 Valley View property. "I think it would be nice to treat those exceptions more efficiently."

A rare designation

Wednesday night's meeting will be the third public hearing the Landmarks Board has held for 445 College Ave. since June.

The property, built in 1963 and long owned by William and Elizabeth Kellogg, was sold to George and Stephanie Stark earlier this year for $1.41 million, according to Boulder County property records. The Starks then moved forward on redevelopment plans that included Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant modifications to serve the needs of an occupant of the home.

Because the house is more than 50 years old and the work proposed met the city's definition of a demolition, the permit filed March 26 triggered a review by the five-member Landmarks Board. Three months later, board members unanimously voted to impose a 180-day stay of demolition to consider a landmark designation, citing the potential architectural and historical significance of the structure that was designed by Modernist architect Wagener and lived in by scientist Kellogg and his wife, Betty, an author who was influential in early childhood education.

After that ruling, city staff members met with the property owners to discuss alternatives to demolition including landmark designation, building an addition, relocating the house and combining the lots through a lot-line elimination, city documents show.

During that time, Historic Preservation and Comprehensive Planning staff members determined that none of those options was considered feasible. The city staff recommended that landmark preservation not be pursued, stating that it would be inconsistent with an aspect of the city ordinance that tries to strike a "reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the city's cultural heritage."

In a 3-2 vote on Oct. 1, with Mark Gerwing and Kate Remley opposing, the Landmarks Board voted to initiate the designation process, resulting in Wednesday night's hearing.

The Starks declined to comment in advance of the meeting.

The memo for the hearing includes a recommendation from the city staff not to designate the structure as a landmark in addition to letters from Historic Boulder and surrounding neighbors opposing the application of a landmark status.

Staff members also noted that a landmark designation over an owner's objection would be rare. Of the 168 designated individual landmarks since 1980, 157 were initiated by the property owner, staff members wrote in the memo. Of the 11 initiated by groups such as Historic Boulder and the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, five were made over the owner's objection.

Additionally, staff members said the simple design of the house did not distinguish it from Wagener's other more sophisticated or successful buildings.

"Likewise, in this case, the historic and environmental significance of the property is not so high as to outweigh the owners' interest in their property and providing an accessible home ... " landmarks staff members wrote.

The Landmarks Board decision would be subject to a call-up by the Boulder City Council within a 45-day period.

The Boulder alt-country band gives its EPs names such as Death and Resurrection, and its songs bear the mark of hard truths and sin. But the punk energy behind the playing, and the sense that it's all in good fun, make it OK to dance to a song like "Death." Full Story